The real reason P2P is used is because its cheaper. You don't need to provide servers to host the game.

In my experience, Client/Server is far more reliable. Because we are still struggling to get games working properly, we haven't even really seen a lot of the bugs that are going to become apparent in Demigod.

If there is no Server, how can the game really judge accurately who has won the match? Just look at the Company of Heroes drop hacking bug that still exists after 2 years. Without a machine to adjudicate there will be all sorts of problems. Also, if one player is lagging, how does the game work out who to kick?

yeah both have pro's and cons

problem is: p2p got much mor con's than pro's. unlucky for us on the pro side is the argument "it's cheaper" so it's auto lose for client server based solutions,

i dont know chris, they just "beleive" it. i had no prove of it. played several games had in every game spikes.

Depending on the game, one lagger can affect your game on a dedicated server. Then again, it depends on how many different copies are being used on that server, how many people are using those servers, etc.

WoW/City of Heroes both have dedicated servers, and I've seen severe lag situations on both of those games. Lag can be experienced on both types of servers.

As far as P2P goes, it's major drawback in my opinion is the dreaded OoS error. Many P2P games suffer from the dreaded OoS error, but eventually work around or solutions are created to make the experience enjoyable, when you are heavily populated server, a server update doesn't always work, but then again you can always transfer to a less populated server where you can have a more enjoyable experience. You also don't need to necessarily worry about the server that you are just completely crashing and going down for periods of a time. P2P, someone drops, next person takes over.

While the OP doesn't understand how it works, a host/client system would work tons better because then only the host has to configure their stuff. This has worked well in the past, because someone intent on hosting will look up how to fix their problems, and the rest don't have to care.

The latency is not a problem. It's no problem in DotA, why should it be one here? This is not a FPS, you don't need instant reactions. In fact, having a relatively large time to react is a key part of this game (you can run, teleport away, use a potion, create a gap using a slow). 200-300ms of latency is trivial.

No L4D isn't p2p it runs on dedicated servers though it has a matchmaking system.

And i dont think the reason of choosing P2P has nothing to be with it being cheaper. I'm a huge fan of World in Conflict it runs on dedicated servers and sometimes LAG can be a pain in the arse and theres nothing similar to CQC in WiC. Does anyone remember Knife fights in BF2? Sometimes it seemed that the other guy had a sword instead of a knife, just because of the lag/server interpolation.

As i said in previous posts RELIC has been dealing with P2P issues in RTS since COH and even now in Dow2, they have the same problems (horrible LAG, horrible matchmaking, unbalanced matchmaking, etc) as Demigod but they havent been so bashed about this, the reason being 'cos Dow2 has a singleplayer campaign (no te very long but still a good campaign).

i'm making a statistic right now, how long it takes to be placed in a game how many tryes how many bots are in the game and how high the ping is of the players....atm i'm at try number 5 and played 1 game with 4 bots and 2 guys having a ping of 200 @_@

Frgoboy just prove that using P2P was an easier implementation and low cost, why still arguing on that "why it was designed that way"?

For the ones that said FPS don't need to be "instant" and RTS needs different necessities...what do you really mean? When I shot someone that trying to hide behind a crate, this is VERY important to have real time but, you will NEVER have realtime in multiplayer game...well never say never but actually, it's impossible. I understand Stardock to have chosen P2P and it's ok, but we must all agree that P2P is not a good architecture these days. Back to windows 98 with no firewall, almost no routers and such, it was pretty easy to connect, now it is difficult for almost everyone.

My point is unless you don't play a card game over the internet, you need to have the most quick response from other player, there isn't a lot of different neccessities for MMO, RTS, FPS, Sports etc.

We will need to "accept" that architecture because they won't change it but I guess they will provide support to setup the whole thing. From now on, companies should stop to take P2P as the solution because the networks of today are so complex, just don't blame Stardock...

In this day and age nobody should be using lag compensation. If you've ever played a Source game you know it's bad compared to any other modern day FPS.

Err no it doesn't. If it cannot connect to a dedicated server it offers the lobby host the ability to host the game on their machine. Every other player connects to the host. L4D does not use P2P.

That is caused by lagcomp and is an issue with source based games. Such issues are less prevalant in say COD 4/5.

Thanks for all the bashing from everyone that think they are too good to explain their reason. I might not have the best netwroking knowledge but all I can say is MEH.

Anyway what is a good upload # to play this game?

laughing out loud @

P2P has failed for ten years or so now so maybe in another 10 years companies will finally stop trying to use it.  Then again, probably not.